"Let's Burn the Jew!!"


Colpy
+5
#1  Top Rated Post
Anti-semitism sank to a new low in Canada after a Winnipeg judge ruled (external - login to view) that grabbing a Jewish classmate, flicking a lighter to her hair and saying, "Let's burn the Jew," was not anti-Semitic. The incident took place between two fifteen-year-old classmates, where the defendant pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon. The lawyer for the defendant implied that it was the girl's fault (external - login to view) that her hair caught fire -- because she pulled away. Then Manitoba Provincial Court Judge Robert Finlayson agreed with the defense that the action was one of teen impulsiveness.
The victim not only stated that the incident "changed her world upside down," but that she needed therapy to deal with her fears and felt that she was blamed by some people in the school for making too much out of the incident.
Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center in Canada expressed horror at Finlayson's ruling. In a press release (external - login to view), CEO Avi Benlolo stated that he could not imagine "the same decision would have been rendered had the perpetrator targeted any other minority group in a similar way."

"Let's Burn the Jew" is not Anti-Semitic? :: Gatestone Institute (external - login to view)

But God help you if you burn a Koran!!
 
Tecumsehsbones
#2
You really should get that OCD looked at.
 
petros
#3
No sht.
 
karrie
+3
#4
well obviously it's no big deal. If it were a big deal, it would warrant discussion on its own merits, and not just be a springboard into a rant about Islam.
 
DaSleeper
#5
Don't let's rant about Islam.......
 
spaminator
+1
#6

The Jewish Hunger Games Kvetching Fire Official Trailer - YouTube

 
Blackleaf
+2
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post


But God help you if you burn a Koran!!


You're right. Burn a Muslim book and a ton of bricks and **** comes down on you.

Attack a Jew and shout "Let's burn the Jew!" is deemed to be okay (at least in the eyes of Canadian law).

I've said it before and I'm going to say it again: It's one rule for the Muslims....
 
petros
#8
Burn the Torah and see where that gets you.

Strange how you don't hear a f*cking peep out of both current posting chrome domes when Israelis blow up Christian Holy sites.
 
DaSleeper
#9
Let's all bow.....Our local internet authority and expert in everything has spoken...
 
Blackleaf
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Let's all bow.....Our local internet authority and expert in everything has spoken...



Aren't you ashamed that attacking Jews is Canada is not seen as anti-Semitic? Obviously not.

I suppose it's to be expected of Canada, though.
 
petros
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Let's all bow.....Our local internet authority and expert in everything has spoken...

Blowing sunshine up your own as$ again Andy?
 
Blackleaf
+2
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Burn the Torah and see where that gets you.

Strange how you don't hear a f*cking peep out of both current posting chrome domes when Israelis blow up Christian Holy sites.


Just as you don't hear many complaints about bloodthirsty Muslims attacking Christians in Central African Republic.

Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world, yet you wouldn't think about it. The only time in the Western world today that you hear about attacks on religious groups anywhere in the world it's when it's Muslims who are the victims. The fact of the matter is, though, that a hell of a lot more Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs.


www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=fUrTitCM8mE (external - login to view)
 
petros
+1
#13
Of course we hear about it. How many Christian Holy Sites in Central Africa have been blown to bits by Israel?

You don't like the backlash that is being taken out on Christians because you just don't know when to STFU with your hatred?

They are coming for you next.

Did you flap your f*cking arms like a goose on fire when Israeli police stopped people from worshipping at the Holy Sepulchre on Easter Saturday?

Did that even make the news in the Turd in the Atlantic punchbowl?
 
lone wolf
#14
Some judges just don't heed the honour ... and some just mouth off.

Britain's Love-Hate Relationship With the Jews - Op-Eds - Israel National News (external - login to view)
 
DaSleeper
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Blowing sunshine up your own as$ again Andy?

Danse tout seul Ti-Pierre


 
petros
#16
la torsion Tena? OO AH OO

You still have no clue what 'dance" means do you Andy?
 
DaSleeper
+1
#17
After 42000 posts this is what you sound like.....

Kid Who Talk A Lot - YouTube

 
petros
#18
You can't put enough words together Andy?


Why not?
Is it my fault you're not verbose and intellectually limited?
 
DaSleeper
#19
You sure ain't the strong silent type are ya????
More like a yappy mutt...
I'll give you the last word so you can be happy
 
petros
#20
You have no choice. I'd let you have it but left leaves things too dry.
 
Cliffy
+3
#21
How many Jews are actually Semitic? Less than 10%? Arabs are Semitic which would technically make Colpy, Blackhead and all the other Muslim haters anti-Semitic.
 
Zipperfish
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

After 42000 posts this is what you sound like.....

Kid Who Talk A Lot - YouTube

Man I am still laughing. that is pretty cute.
 
Colpy
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

How many Jews are actually Semitic? Less than 10%? Arabs are Semitic which would technically make Colpy, Blackhead and all the other Muslim haters anti-Semitic.

Yep, which is why I try to avoid the term. I prefer "Jew-hater".

And I think hate laws are idiotic, a futile attempt at thought control....what he thought of her is irrelevant, what he did is important.

But it is equally wrong to find him innocent of hate.........
 
Cliffy
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Yep, which is why I try to avoid the term. I prefer "Jew-hater".

And I think hate laws are idiotic, a futile attempt at thought control....what he thought of her is irrelevant, what he did is important.

But it is equally wrong to find him innocent of hate.........

Setting his hair on fire would have been appropriate.
 
karrie
+4
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post


But it is equally wrong to find him innocent of hate.........


Unless of course the therapist and judge are in agreement that he did what he did for attention from the class, not because he hated the girl, which is exactly how all of this sounds.... like whoever happened to cross his path in that moment was likely to end up the target.

Personally, what I find the absolute most appalling about this case is the lack of sentence coupled with the lack of mandatory counselling (unless I missed something when I read). Basically, the court has said 'he's so impulsive he'll set someone on fire to get attention'.... and left it at that. WTF? I find that much more concerning than the lack of a hate-crime label.
 
SLM
+3
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Unless of course the therapist and judge are in agreement that he did what he did for attention from the class, not because he hated the girl, which is exactly how all of this sounds.... like whoever happened to cross his path in that moment was likely to end up the target.

Personally, what I find the absolute most appalling about this case is the lack of sentence coupled with the lack of mandatory counselling (unless I missed something when I read). Basically, the court has said 'he's so impulsive he'll set someone on fire to get attention'.... and left it at that. WTF? I find that much more concerning than the lack of a hate-crime label.

I agree. Why don't we just say that it's illegal. Let's call it, oh I don't know, assault, when you set someone's hair on fire and deal with that appropriately. What the hell, I mean, we have those court buildings just standing there anyway.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

I agree. Why don't we just say that it's illegal. Let's call it, oh I don't know, assault, when you set someone's hair on fire and deal with that appropriately. What the hell, I mean, we have those court buildings just standing there anyway.

I have said something along those lines in the past....
If I should call someone a "Frigging queer" as I punch him in the face, why should I get a stiffer sentence if he actually is gay than if he's a strait guy?
They are both assault....
 
SLM
+2
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

I have said something along those lines in the past....
If I should call someone a "Frigging queer" as I punch him in the face, why should I get a stiffer sentence if he actually is gay than if he's a strait guy?
They are both assault....

They are both assault, I don't disagree with that at all. Now I do think, my own personal opinion, that there are some situations where groups or individuals in a minority group (race, creed, orientation, etc) are targeted because of hatred, ignorance and prejudice but I would much rather see that addressed as a "special circumstance" when it comes to sentencing. If it can be proven of course. But first you have to convict someone of assault, so that should be what they are charged with.
 
karrie
+2
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

I have said something along those lines in the past....
If I should call someone a "Frigging queer" as I punch him in the face, why should I get a stiffer sentence if he actually is gay than if he's a strait guy?
They are both assault....


That shouldn't be considered hate crime. Hate crime is when you go out to find a queer to punch in the face, or punch him only because he's gay. That's why they didn't find this to be a hate crime... he'd have targeted anyone in that class. eeny meeny miny mo, pick a victim by the toe.
 
Cliffy
+1
#30
Imagine the ruckus if it was a black guy who said "Let's burn whitey"?
 
no new posts